The Cathaoirleach has given permission to Senator Connaughton to move the following matter on the adjournment: the restrictions imposed by the Department of Agriculture on small farmers and part-time farmers in their efforts to be included in the farm modernisation scheme.
Adjournment Debate. - Farm Modernisation Scheme.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I want to take this opportunity of thanking the Chair for allowing this debate. I very much appreciate it in view of the fact that the problem is a very serious one. I propose, with your permission, to allow part of my time to my colleague, Senator Howard.
First, a few brief words about the farm modernisation scheme in the context of what we have been speaking about. Chiefly it has been the vehicle used to channel financial aid to farmers and owners of land generally since we joined the EEC. My opinion is that the farmers who require the greatest help are receiving the least amount of money available. A certain category of farmer who deserves more help—this is not a political matter, as such, it has obtained now for a number of years—certainly is not receiving it.
Secondly, my contribution this evening is limited to a fairly specific area of the farm modernisation scheme. Within the confines of what I am speaking about there are two points which are basically inter-related. For example, the present constraint on persons who are interested in joining the farm modernisation scheme is unreasonable. At present I understand that persons who own land, who have off-farm employment, who are earning over £3,500 a year are not eligible for transitional status or indeed for the category referred to as "others". Many part-time farmers hold jobs only because they are unable to make a living on their holdings. Many are employed in off-farm employment. A typical example is that of the Tynagh Mines, where many farmers would be earning marginally over £3,500 but could not regard their jobs as being pensionable or permanent.
It is the aim of the Government and of everybody connected with the economy that the best possible use be made out of every acre of land in this country. Unless incentives are given for investment in farming, we will lose badly. There are several categories of people I would like to see included in the farm modernisation scheme irrespective of their earnings. I would include in that category all manual and factory workers. When I say "manual workers" I am thinking of forestry workers, county council workers and people of that type. Indeed I would go a step further and advocate that people attached to mental institutions, mental nurses and so on who have over the years managed to buy small farms in and around those areas, should be included also. If it means that productivity on those farms will be increased then they should be aided by the farm modernisation scheme. Every person in this State who farms land, irrespective of whatever other job they might have, should be included in the farm modernisation scheme in regard to grants for drainage, because waterlogged land, irrespective of who owns it, is bad for the economy. When one takes into account-the remarkable improvements in technology that have taken place in machinery and so on in land drainage we should be motivating our farmers and landowners to achieve the goal of not having a wet field in Ireland. Our economy has always been dependent on a good agricultural industry.
I might take this opportunity of asking the Minister if there is a considerable amount of haziness about the eligibility thresholds in various counties for admitting persons to the farm modernisation scheme? From what I can gather, several county committees of agriculture seem to have different interpretations of who is eligible and who is not. That is not helpful and I would welcome the Minister's views. There is the question also of very small farmers, those with perhaps four or five acres. It has been suggested in some parts that county committees of agriculture do not look too kindly on those operators. Some people might suggest that one is bringing it to the level of the local parish pump. To my knowledge there are a certain number of people who, because of farmyard enterprises and so on, are making a very good living for themselves and their families on that type of holding. The particular categories themselves are self-defeating. The aids to development farmers are not effective. There are several farmers who could be classified as development farmers but who would rather not accept that classification because that automatically debars them from 160 land, or from land that is released under the farm retirement scheme. If that attitude is as widespread as I believe it is then that category is self-defeating. There should be a redevelopment category with the goal of reaching the comparable income within ten years and not within the five to six years that we have at the moment. The aim of aids to farming through the farm modernisation scheme should be to increase livestock numbers dramatically. If one were to take the guidance premiums to date, one would be bitterly disappointed. Whatever about the ideals behind the scheme at the beginning, in practice they have not worked the wonders that I was led to believe at the beginning that they might. I look forward to extra cash aids for the type of farmer I am talking about, the predevelopment category, the small farmer with good initiative, with the ability to work hard, to use his hands and his brains at the same time, provided he is working on a planned production basis and to achieve certain targets. In the development category it is very important particularly on small dairy farms where there is good output, that when retirement pension land becomes available in the locality those people are not debarred from getting it because of the fact that they are development status. Those people in small acreages are the people who have a good future in farming. The situation at the moment is a deterrent right across the country.
At a time when there is tremendous talk about unemployment it is very important that we keep the greatest number of people possible on the land. I have no doubt that, if suitable incentives were given, with the good markets for agricultural produce that are available at the present time we would certainly keep lots more people on the land than we would have believed was possible five years ago. I would remind the Minister that since 1972 the whole economic climate has changed, not alone in Ireland but across Europe. In 1972 it was the hue and cry that joining the EEC would mean that lots of farmers would have to come off the land. A lot of people subscribed to that view at the time. Times are changing so rapidly that any type of employment in rural Ireland is better than no employment. We have the infrastructural requirements and I see no reason why our people could not be left on the land making a better living for themselves and contributing to the national economy.
There are a hundred other aspects of the farm modernisation scheme that time will not allow me to go into. I will summarise my points for the Minister. Part-time farmers, and all manual workers of the various types I have mentioned should be allowed into the farm modernisation scheme. All persons farming land should get drainage grants irrespective of their incomes. There should be uniformity of application of the scheme in all areas. Very small farmers should be admitted. The categories should be changed. There should be a predevelopment category with particular reference to a land requirement. The comparable income in this category should be extended to ten years. Most important of all, the total emphasis for all aids should be on increased livestock numbers. The future of the agricultural sector depends entirely on the output from farming, which depends to a great extent on the livestock numbers we can maintain on the farms.
I thank Senator Connaughton for allowing me a few minutes to make some general observations on what is a very important subject for the agricultural community. While no doubt it is impossible in the few minutes that are available to do anything other than to give very general observations on this matter, my purpose in coming into the debate tonight is to support Senator Connaughton in this motion and to highlight the restrictions that exist to prevent the small and part-time farmers and in fact the majority of land owners from participating in the farm modernisation scheme.
I encourage the Minister to seek the changes necessary. The Minister will probably accept a number of points that we are making here, and in that event I regard our function as being one of giving whatever encouragement and support is necessary to bring about the very desirable changes necessary in this scheme. We must always accept that our farm land is our greatest national resource, that approximately a quarter of the population depends on it for a livelihood, and that it has a capacity to maintain that percentage of our population in reasonable comfort and with a reasonable standard of living if it is encouraged in its development. We can only express our disappointment that the operation of the farm modernisation scheme in the past four years has failed to provide that encouragement for growth and development in the agricultural industry. It is generally accepted that the cost of maintaining a person in employment in agriculture is considerably less than the cost of providing a job for that person in industry.
I understand that the EEC Commission are on the point of reviewing the farm modernisation scheme which first saw the light of day in 1972. It went into operation in Ireland at the beginning of 1974. For the past four years we can only describe its contribution to Irish farm development as being inadequate. It has failed to give the incentive, the encouragement and the resources where they are needed most. It could also be truthfully said that where the need is most, the least has been supplied.
I understand from the figures that are available that only one-fifth of farmers have succeeded in being classified as either development of commercial farmers. I understand also that in the 11 counties in the west and the north-west as little as one in 20 have succeeded in getting into the development or commercial category. If the thinking behind the farm modernisation scheme, when it was brought into existence in 1972, is applied to that figure it means that somebody somewhere has decided that four-fifths of the farmers of this country have not a future in agriculture. This is an extremely serious situation and one which we in this island cannot accept.
Generally I would say that this scheme so far has been a failure and it might even be described as a disaster for the majority of our farmers. We cannot have a successful agricultural industry without a fundamental and substantial change in the farm modernisation scheme we have seen operating in the past four years.
We must, first of all, recognise the potential and capacity of this industry to provide a living for a substantial part of our population. We must recognise that it is capable of enormous expansion, productivity, output and consequently, jobs, but equally, we must recognise the right of any person involved in agriculture to have access to a livelihood within agriculture if he chooses to have it there. We must also recognise the advantages that we have in agriculture. Let me briefly compare our country with the Netherlands. Our farms are about one-third in size greater than the average farm in the Netherlands, but we are producing considerably less. Our grass yield is about half of that of the Netherlands and our fertiliser use is about one-third. It is within that field that I see the scope and necessity for having a scheme that will capitalise on the obvious advantages we have there. We must mainly recognise that all the land of this country is a national asset and, for that reason, I should like to join with Senator Connaughton in saying that I hope that in a new scheme all land, irrespective of the classification of its owners, will qualify for land reclamation.
I am running out of time and must curtail my remarks on this. In conclusion I should like to say that the Minister can rest assured of total support in bringing about the changes that are necessary for the farm modernisation scheme to ensure that this industry is supplied with the facilities and resources to realise its full potential.
May I thank Senator Connaughton and Senator Howard for their observations in this matter. I share their evident objective in establishing as many people on the land, making their living from the land, as is physically possible. I must say that Senator Howard's remark that the modernisation scheme has been a disaster—I quote him—is in itself a disastrous statement. The truth is that it is a very advantageous scheme and a great amount of work is being done under it. We do not have unlimited resources but a great increase in the rate of land improvement and farm development has taken place under the modernisation scheme. It is an incorrect, wrong and, indeed, misleading statement for Senator Howard to say that it is a disastrous scheme. People not knowing any better would assume that what Senator Howard has said has some substance in it. There is no substance in that statement.
There are four-fifths of our farmers who cannot——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister must be allowed to continue, please.
The main commitment of the farm modernisation scheme is, and must be, to the people who derive their income from working on the land. In order to keep this commitment foremost in our minds we must then consider people who have part-time employment. For that reason the comparable income of £3,500 is laid down. If a farmer earns less than that there is nothing to stop him keeping a part-time job and participating in the farm modernisation scheme. It is a difficult problem because there are so many kinds of part-time farmers. The Agricultural Institute have done some studies on this and have shown that land that is being farmed by people with other means of livelihood is not as well farmed as the land farmed by farmers who depend on farming. This is not an assertion. This is a fact, established by An Foras Talúntais.
In some areas this is not the case.
It is not customary to interrupt when people are speaking.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister must be allowed to continue.
Let us consider, for instance, the people who have small portions of land, however they came into possession of them. There are, as we all know, people throughout the country who have bought land as a speculation and who may have very substantial, five-figure incomes. Admittedly, that is an exception but there are people who have substantial incomes in industry. Frequently, that industry was established with the aid of substantial Government grants. I understand Senators Connaughton and Howard are saying that, having got a State-aided job in industry, they should have a State-aided improvement of their land as well.
The reason for grant-aiding land improvement, in the first place, is in order to get a situation where men can have an acceptable standard of living. The Senators are talking, in some of these cases, about two-job men. In a scarcity-of-job situation it is not reasonable, or even right, to say that people with very substantial, well-paid off-farm jobs, over £3,500, should be entitled to the same kind of aid as people who are dependent solely on farming for their living. This would inevitably diminish the pool of aid—in this year's budget it is £28 million—however big it was. We would like to spend it on the development of farms primarily for people who get most of their living from the land.
There are people with seasonal jobs, people working in Bord na Móna, the county council, the Forestry Division and places of that kind. Nobody will quarrel with their right to improve their land or deny them assistance to improve their land. This, again, may well be a misconception. It ought not to happen. It is also important to remember that a great many people, especially in the west of Ireland, have not applied for classification. There are a great many people who may well find themselves in a position to be classified under the farm modernisation scheme, to participate in it and to be grant-aided in the works that can be done by it.
The trend of the speeches made by the Senators seems to suggest that they are under a misconception in this regard. That is not so. I would not have any compunction at all in saying to people who have bits of land, whether it is land by inheritance, purchase or speculation, but who have other very adequate means of livelihood, that the farm modernisation scheme fund, however big it is, does not owe those people anything. If one makes grants available to people of that kind, one diminishes the amount of money available for the fellows who really need it. I do not recommend that.
I agree with Senator Connaughton that the farm modernisation scheme would stand a bit of improvement. The Fianna Fáil manifesto refers to the desirability of a predevelopment category. We would prefer to see expansion of the development category, downwards especially, to catch as many people as possible who can be taken in if it is expanded. The current position in Brussels is that this proposal will shortly be coming before the Council of Ministers for consideration. We will be pushing for an expansion of the scheme in order that we will be able to embrace the maximum number of people who really could genuinely convert grant assistance into profitability for the country.
Senator Connaughton mentioned that drainage in the west is vitally important. We all know this. This is why the Government have asked me to press for special assistance from the Community for drainage in the west. I am happy to tell the Senators that this will come. With the aid of the Community, we will be able to mount a very good scheme for drainage in the west of Ireland. I will consider what Senator Connaughton said about making this drainage money available to owners of various small parcels of land, because as he and I know in a general drainage scheme in a large area all the land must be drained. Little pockets cannot be left undrained because it could give rise to future trouble in any drainage scheme. Senator Connaughton also mentioned the possibility of variation in standards. There are very well recognised and accepted criteria exercised by the CAO in each county when he is determining the category into which a farmer will be placed. The decisions are made by the CAO. The criteria have been formulated by the Department of Agriculture in collaboration with the European Community. I am afraid that when dealing with individuals decisions must be made by people on the spot. There may be some slight variation between counties but I do not think it is serious. I do not think there is any sharp difference in criteria from county to county. If there are and it is bearing unfairly on people in a certain area, I certainly guarantee to look at it.
I think I have dealt with most of the questions raised by the Senators. I thank them for their interest in this matter, which is very important. If there are any matters I did not deal with, possibly we could meet one another during the recess.
The Seanad adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 6 July 1978.